Expire a risk acceptance early in DefectDojo to reactivate its associated findings, with an optional reason for ending the acceptance.
Expire a risk acceptance early (reactivates its findings).
Args: risk_acceptance_id: The risk acceptance ID reason: Optional reason for expiring
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| risk_acceptance_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect (reactivates findings), which is valuable, but does not state permission requirements, reversibility, or whether already-expired acceptances error out.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-line summary is front-loaded with the critical side effect, and the Args block is minimal. Slightly mechanical formatting adds minor overhead but no real waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the side effect is covered. But with no annotations and 0% schema coverage on a mutation tool, the definition leaves permissions, error cases, and interaction with delete/reinstate siblings unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it names both parameters and clarifies that reason is optional, but adds no format, constraints, or meaning (e.g., whether reason is stored in audit history) beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource (expire a risk acceptance) and immediately clarifies the consequence (reactivates its findings), which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_risk_acceptance or reinstate_risk_acceptance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical 'reactivates its findings' implies when this is used (ending risk acceptance before natural expiry), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. delete_risk_acceptance or reinstate_risk_acceptance, and no mention of conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.